The Americans with Disabilities Act is a prime example of good-intended legislation that has had a multitude of negative consequences. A few weeks ago, the Obama Administration placed a 60-day extension on the mandate most recently placed under that law. The mandate? Every pool that is open to the public most install a lift for those in wheelchairs so that they can safely be placed in the pool. This sounds great, now all the "disabled" will be able to safely enter the pool. What monster would oppose such a concept?
I do. My primary grievance comes as soon as I see the word "mandate." Anytime the government has to dictate what a private business can or can't do, it will inhibit the business owner, otherwise, if it was good for the business, I'm sure the business in question would already be doing it. But let me clear the smoke by laying out what the legislation actually entails. The mandate says that all pools open to the public (public pools, private pools, hotel-owned pools, etc.) must install a lift for individuals bound to wheelchairs that lifts them out of their wheelchairs and places them into the pool. The Obama Administration recognizes that these lifts can cost several thousands of dollars (the estimates I've seen range from 3000-5000 dollars), so they offer a 5,000 dollar tax-credit to any of the pool-owners willing to comply, and if architectural work or renovating needs to be done, then the business will be granted a 10,000 dollar tax credit per year. However problems emerge because of how vague the mandate is, it does not constitute what will count as an acceptable lift. This type of law-ambiguity can easily result in a lawsuit which will ultimately cost the business owner much more. In fact, critics of the mandate say that one reason this legislation was imposed is due to the affiliation of trial lawyers to the Obama campaign, the same group that contributed $45 million to his 2008 campaign. As a result, many hotel owners who fear that they will not be able to comply with the mandate are closing down their pools. Now everybody loses.
Legislation like this is intended to help the "disabled," to level the playing field. But I fear this legislation doesn't really help the "disabled." For several years of my life growing up, I was a member of a private pool for public use, which is where I met Stacy (Stacy is not her real name). Stacy had suffered a stroke early in her twenties, resulting in partial-paralysis of the left side of her body. She walks with an unnatural gait and wears a brace on her left leg, and surely qualifies as one of the 36 million Americans considered to be disabled. However, she is a fantastic swimmer, and would surely beat me in a swimming race. Does that make me "disabled?" The term disabled itself is degrading, because while those who are called "disabled" may suffer physical complications, they may excel at something else. My mom's father was stricken with cataracts at age seven and was totally blind by the age of nine. He got by just fine with the love and support of my grandmother, and his trusty seeing eye dog. He didn't need government's pity.
Government's laws intended for good do nothing more than make the less fortunate subordinated and dependent. I have no problem if the pool-owner puts in a wheelchair lift due to the request of customers, but the government mandating such is wrong. Vague rules invite lawsuits, which, even if the pool-owner wins, the time and money spent in trial is surely no victory.
